I work at an animal hospital and we had an inceident in our reception area this morning. Customer A arrived with their rottweiler, signed in and went to find a seat in the waiting area. Customer B asked Customer A if they could stroke the rottweiler to which Customer A said yes. As Customer B went to stroke the Rottweiler, it leaped up and gripped Customer B's jumper sleeve and began to tear it violently with its teeth. Thankfully Customer B wasnt injured. Customer B filled out the accident & near miss book, and went on to say we should have "muzzled" the dog. At no stage were we made aware that the animal could be dangerous and so I dont think we should have provided a muzzle. The rottweiler was still under the owners control and Customer B took a risk by stroking the dog. Usually in these circumstances owners with dangerous dogs, bring them to the hospital already "muzzled". If we were to apply Customer B's logic, then all dogs entering the hospital would have to be wearing a muzzle. My interpretation of the law would be that this was an unforeseen circumstance and it would not be reasonably practicable to muzzle all dogs. I am interested to know what everyone else thinks about this? Many thanks Mike

Customer B should notify the Police who will probably warn the dog's owner that if it happens again the dog will be confiscated, or if this is the second time they will simply take the dog.

Excuse my simplistic view. I don't keep pets, so may be well off the mark. I would assume that animals, in most instances, would be taken to a vet because they are sick. Sick animals would probably act in an unpredictable manner. If a pet owner decides to stroke someone else's sick animal, a Rottweiler at that, they do so at their own risk. Customer B would be told, politely of course, where to shove their complaint. I don't think reporting this as an incident to the Police would be right, it's not the poor dogs fault. How would you like it if some stranger came up to you and started stroking your head when you're ill?

Thanks for your input everyone. I completely agree. If the dog had been running loose under our care in the waiting area and bit Customer B then I would expect to be held liable, but this wasnt the case. The most common accidents that occurs at the practice are slips and trips, very rarely do we have incidents of this kind and if we do, it is usually the vets themselves that are bitten. Like you say, they are dealing with distressed animals that are out of their comfort zone.

Have to say I don't agree with the above. I believe that there is a foreseeable risk and, judging by your post alone, you don't have any assessment done and no policy or procedure in place. My argument is that you should have. The breed of dog in question is recognised as dangerous, I'm no expert but isn't there a list of dog breeds and specific legislation attached to them? Your own post backs up the point I'm making regarding the hazards associated with dogs and indeed a number of other animals too. Consider, would you have a young child sit next to a dog in a vets waiting room? Would an average person not weigh up the risk and choose a different seat? Sure, there is a large onus on the individual who choose to pet the dog but I’m claiming that the risk was foreseeable. I like dogs and cats etc and I don’t think anyone has to resort to knee jerk, overkill, solutions. Just risk assess and see where reason leads you. Mick

i did the HS for a schol where they did a bring our pet to school day a small dog bit another child the parents sued the school the judge ruled in favour of the school saying that the owners of the dog should not have sent it in if they knew there was a chance of an incident the pet was under the owners care the school carried out its responsiblity by having a comprehensive risk assesssment in place